commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sébastien Brisard <>
Subject Re: [math] Merge of interface and implementation of *Test classes in stat.inference
Date Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:58:30 GMT
Hi Thomas,
2012/2/10 Thomas Neidhart <>:
> On 02/10/2012 09:58 AM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
>> Hello,
>>> I strongly prefer _not_ to have the (unchecked) exceptions in the signature.
>>> [Arguments mentioned numerous times in previous discussions...]
>> It's true it has been argued only recently. I was just wondering
>> whether it might be worth configuring checkstyle so as to make it
>> complain about unchecked exceptions in the signature. I'm not a CS
>> guru, so I don't know whether this is possible, but that would help
>> new committers!
> Yes indeed. I have search the ML about this topic, and had found this
> thread:
> and the developer's guideline for CM also states this:
> All public methods advertise all exceptions that they can generate.
> Exceptions must be documented in both javadoc and method signatures and
> the documentation in the javadoc must include full description of the
> conditions under which exceptions are thrown.
> Could you give me some pointers about more recent discussions? I am
> basically fine with the approach chosen, but would like to be consistent
> in the way I contribute or edit code.
Here is a recent thread on this issue (as you can see, this thread was
caused by a faulty commit from me...).
Best regards,

> Thanks,
> Thomas
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message